Another under the sea baby. I like how even with all of the editing, the fauxtog couldn’t even out baby’s skin tone a bit.
← Previous post
Next post →
why does the baby have a nub instead of a whole arm?
It’s a fin…
Copyright be damned!
I thought the same thing!
Screw Disney and their damn copyrights! It’s in a movie I bought for my oldest child so I can copy it if I want! No need to pay taxes OR royalties if your a Fauxtog!
Wow! Now thats the best bab mermaid sears photo I have ever seen, LOL
The baby’s arm is tucked under. It’s not editing, it’s how newborns curl up. Have you seen one before? And what is wrong with the tone? IT LOOKS LIKE A NEWBORN.
I don’t like the Disney characters stuffed in there, and the composition is blah, but the nub on the arm? The skin tone? REALLY? That’s what’s really screwed with photography, pros who think that airbrushing crap to the point where it looks fake is a GOOD thing. I want to remember my children, not what someone thinks my children SHOULD look like. When I get shots taken, I choose photographers that are true and real, not fakes who are more illustrators/artists than photographers. If you don’t like what you have to work with, quit taking photos.
So putting a baby under water with a mermaid tail is “Keeping it real”?
yes, i have to agree with you, i would rather see airbrushed skin than “under the sea ” babies with nemo and dory.!
Respectfully, Ann, I don’t think that evening out the skin tone is any more an attempt to make a photo look artificial than touching up acne on a teenager’s senior photo or wearing makeup for a special event.
I’d also point out that it’s the fauxtogs who photoshop, blur, super-saturate and clone photos so far over the line. A professional photographer’s touch-up work would be so subtle that you wouldn’t notice, unless you had a specific reason for documenting your infant’s Erythema toxicum.
Ann – yes newborns curl up like that. But thats why you would photograph them from a different angle so that you can see they have a full arm, otherwise it looks like a stub which can ruin the whole picture because it is simply too distracting. (If you look closely part of the baby’s elbow has been obscured by the pearl things beneath it where the photographer has been abit lazy when merging the two pictures) The focal point should be on the baby’s face, but here, because of the compostion, angle etc, your eye is drawn to the arm, and it looks weird. So rather than thinking aw cute baby, you’re thinking, what’s with the arm? And again with the skin, yeah newborns can have uneven tone, but here there is too much of a contast between the body and the head, so again it’s distracting and out of place. I agree with you, some photographers go too far when editing the skin. I especially don’t like it on babes as they can lose that just-arrived baby look. But that’s the sign of a good photographer – they subtley enhance the picture without losing the realness of it. The joke here is that the photographer has spent all this time making a really cheesey background, but has completely overlooked the basics, and has therefore missed out on what could have been a really lovely photograph. Of course if this is what the parents wanted then fair enough, but it could have been so much better if they’d gotten the basics right first. That’s the problem with a lot of people, they jump straight to photoshop before they learn how to actually take a picture.
I’m a newborn photographer and this is fucking stupid. Airbrushing is not necessary to get even skin tone. It’s called knowing how to use your camera correctly.
@ Ann, it seems you do not know much about art, or the art of phtoography, if they only way someone can be a REAL photographer is to take a photo and it goes straight out of the camera to your pretty little fingers. It doesn’t work that way, cameras cannot and photogs cannot always get everything perfect in-camera, and that is why PROFESSIONALS use photoshop and other post-processing software, otherwise it would have died out already.
If it was me, and I had a pimple on my nose, I would be the first to say, photoshop that out! It is not something that is there all the time and not something I want to be remembered for for years to come.
If you want to be a purist, go over to the purists group, I love technology and what the computer can do for my photos. This fauxtog abomination, however, is not how you do it right. There are so many FREE resources on the net and libraries, no one has any excuse for not learning how to use post-processing software.
Well Said Alanna!
It looks like the shell was taken over the Internet… if you look closely, you can see is was a high compression jpg… we can see the pixels and the blur…
Before someone goes overboard with photo collage, this person should learn the basics of drawing and proportions. The shadow of the shell is not right since the light source is above the subject. The mermaid tail looks like it was drawn by a 3 y.o. I wouldn’t go overboard with the skin tone, but would do a little something to make the baby’s face looks less reddish…
it’s a shit picture. I don’t get why people come to this site and try and defend the fauxtogs? There is no excuse for producing crap like this. None. If you think this picture is worth defending, your opinion has lost all credibility in my eyes.
People defend the fauxtogs because they do the same things themselves. It’s the same people who think that baby bump photos can be “cute”.
Why do people see the need to defend this, when a simple white background would have shown off the natural beauty of the newborn so much better? This is like drawing glasses and a mustache on the Mona Lisa!
I don’t like the background – whether it was “purchased” or lifted. Disney sometimes will license their backdrops and characters but even if they do – one should use them carefully. If this isn’t licensed – I’d expect a call from Disney’s lawyers if I were the photographer. Disney tends to protect their copyright very aggressively.
The whole babies as thing is just too much… and people need to remember that Anne G spends hours on each image in post getting them just right (along with hours in pre production planning, lighting and setup.
As for the pose itself – I’m okay with that. Perhaps a bit of skin softening could have been done on the baby’s face – but if the parent didn’t want then so be it.
Just as an FYI – I’ve had clients tell me – “NO EDITING OF FEATURES – EVEN BAD THINGS SUCH AS ZITS, ETC…” And I’ve also had client’s go the other way and say they want everything edited.
The premise of this site and some replies are pretty sad…clearly people who have nothing better than do than to criticise others for things that the majority of the population do not care about.
“Just because you own a camera, you are a not a photographer” > What are you then, a doctor?
You are clearly a person who has nothing better to do than to criticize others for things that he does not care about.
You may also believe that buying a medal at a pawnshop makes you a war hero.
This site exists because people buy cameras and think they can be photographers without any research, education or training and then charge next to nothing for their crappy work. This in turn lowers people’s standards and photographers that have actually gone to college or interned and spent a lot of money learning the craft are left in the lurch. Why spend a good amount of money on a photographer when you can hire a fauxtographer for $20 a session?
Sadly, the first thing I thought of when I saw this image is “that baby sleeps with the fishes” 😐
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.